Caught between the untenable and the unlikable, a dozen members of Congress face the prospect of throwing Washington into chaos

As a symbol of government dysfunction, the deficit supercommittee has succeeded gloriously.

Its basic premise, which arose from the summer's debt-limit stalemate, is that President Obama and congressional leaders could only agree on the fact that they could not agree. We can't decide what to do about deficits, they said, so let's make these other guys decide later. As solutions go, it wasn't one.

It's easy (and fun!) to look on the supercommittee cynically, but the idea could in theory actually work. If the six Republicans and six Democrats can agree on a plan, the supercommittee will look like a brilliant instance of managerial delegation.

That's what all hope for. The other possibility, of course, is that the supercommittee will fail, just as the process that preceded it did.

If it does, what form might that failure take -- and what will the policy and political consequences be?

The Somewhat Bad Scenario Many Would Like to Avoid: "Sequestration"

"Sequestration" is kind of an ugly word, despite its resemblance to "Sea Quest." Fitting, then, that it's what will happen if the supercommittee can't agree on a deficit-reduction plan.

What it means: If the committee can't agree on an approach by the Thanksgiving Holiday, that failure would automatically trigger an across-the-board cutting process to eliminate $1.2 trillion. This would seem like something deficit-reducing GOP House members could get behind, but remember -- these would be across-the-board cuts and would dig into defense funding that the GOP wants to preserve as well. The whole concept of sequestration was designed to encourage the committee to reach agreement or face consequences neither party likes.

Here's how it could go down: The committee has until Nov. 23 to approve a plan that reduces the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Right now it's still up to the panel members how they do it: Cut spending or raise taxes -- it's their choice. If they can't agree on a plan, sequestration automatically follows by law.

The cutting would be mandated and automatic, with little flexibility. Some programs would be exempt -- Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Earned Income Tax Credit, veterans' benefits, and federal retirement, for instance -- but some defense programs like war funding would take a 9-percent hit, compared to current spending levels.

It's unclear which programs would get cut the most: The Budget Control Act, which created the supercommittee and delineated the cuts outlined above, does not specify which individual programs will lose money -- only which agencies. The administration and congressional appropriators will have to figure it out.

Medicare might be the ugliest area of cutting: It would take the biggest hit of any mandatory, nondefense spending program, according to the CBO, although about 10 percent of Medicare would be exempt from cuts, while the remaining 90 percent would be limited to 2 percent in yearly spending reductions. So says the CBO:

The CBO estimates that mandatory spending will account for roughly 58 percent of all nondefense spending that would be subject to enforcement procedures under the Budget Control Act during those nine years. Of that nonexempt mandatory spending, the vast majority is for Medicare programs and activities that would be subject to the 2 percent limit. In the absence of such a limit, reductions in budgetary resources for Medicare would total $256 billion between 2013 and 2021, CBO estimates; with the 2 percent ceiling,
however, such reductions would total $123 billion over that period.

There's a silver lining for Medicare recipients, in that premiums would drop for Medicare Part B (medical coverage), costing the government $31 billion through 2021.

Farm subsidies would take a big hit. CBPP says they, not Medicare, would see the worst of it: "About $5.2 billion in cuts in the other mandatory programs that are subject to
sequestration, the biggest of which is farm price supports," the group writes. The war-funding cuts outlined in CBPP's chart would, undoubtedly, make some people nervous.

Bottom line: Should sequestration happen, get ready for an algae-bloom of stories about what appropriators and the administration would consider cutting. Other than Medicare, major vital programs for vulnerable constituents would be protected, but we'd read stories every day about education grants and the like getting the axe.

Making cuts will be no fun, and legislators could cut less by raising taxes on the rich -- a broadly popular idea that Republicans vehemently oppose, saying it's a bad idea to raise taxes on anybody, even the one percent, during economic hard times. There has been little movement on this front.

The Potentially Even Worse Scenario That Would Make Everyone Feel Distraught About Washington's General Functionality

The cuts wouldn't be fun, but there's a scenario that might be even worse. It's possible Congress will try to wriggle out of the automatically-triggered cuts, creating an even greater crisis of confidence than already exist in the federal government's ability to uphold its commitments and fulfill the promises made in August that temporarily resolved the debt-limit stalemate.

"I think a lively debate will occur" over whether to allow the automatic cuts take place -- so-called sequestration -- despite President Obama's insistence on Friday he would not go along with any attempt to turn them off.

Toomey said that "in the very very unfortunate event that we don't, I think it's very likely that Congress would reconsider the configuration of that sequestration, and consider is this really the best way to do it?" Toomey said.

President Obama has said he doesn't see this as an option, warning the supercommittee members on Friday not to try to undo the Budget Control Act and avoid sequestration. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also opposes this outcome, saying this week that "those who are -- who talk about retracting the sequester are wrong, are not living up to the agreement we reached to cut our nation's deficit last July." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't say whether he thinks sequestration could be skirted, ABC reported.

Should Congress and the president go back on their self-imposed consequences and deadline, it's tough to even describe how much credibility Washington would lose.

More to the point, this possibility has the makings of a terrible political fight, pitting President Obama (and congressional leaders) against a faction of lawmakers not wanting the cuts to happen. Ultimately, the responsibility will fall to Obama to order sequestration into effect. This is how the Budget Control Act was written:

(8) IMPLEMENTING DIRECT SPENDING REDUCTIONS.--On the
date specified in paragraph (4) during each applicable year,
OMB shall prepare and the President shall order a sequestration, effective upon issuance, of nonexempt direct spending
to achieve the direct spending reduction calculated pursuant
to paragraphs (5) and (6). When implementing the sequestration
of direct spending pursuant to this paragraph, OMB shall follow
the procedures specified in section 6 of the Statutory Pay-
As-You-Go Act of 2010, the exemptions specified in section
255, and the special rules specified in section 256, except that
the percentage reduction for the Medicare programs specified
in section 256(d) shall not be more than 2 percent for a fiscal
year.

Imagining the truly worst-case scenario requires stretching one's mind to accommodate all the political malfeasance of which Washington, collectively, is capable. Would some lawmakers deride the president for enacting the cuts? Would the president and leaders of both parties suffer a public backlash for standing by their word? The reasonable answer is no, but anything is possible. It's possible to imagine Congress and the president forced into a situation where both options -- enacting the promised cuts, and reneging on the promise of making them -- are unpalatable.

In the worst-case scenario, a political tragicomedy unfolds wherein the budget-and-debt debate never actually solves itself, but rolls on in a debacle where everyone is the bad guy, in one way or another. Congress reneges on its promises; Obama is forced to order a sequestration; budget-cutting is done by fiat rather than carefully by individual members; needed programs are badly undercut; and the public is dragged into yet another maelstrom of partisan discord that drains any remaining faith they might have in their government's ability to act to solve problems that need to be addressed.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.